I worked for one of the major xchange companies...

[Carolinian]

Re: The problem with points

If you put a points program in that has access to weeks-based inventory, the experience of the unfair generic points grids of RCI fro crossover trades of Points into Weeks will put off those who have had experience of the unfair interface of RCI Weeks and RCI Points.

RCI and the minis are trying to grab the points market. The fertile ground for independents is grabbing the huge numbers of weeks based members they are leaving in the lurch. Putting in a points component muddies the water in this regard. Will the new company just end up screwing weeks-based members like RCI? I think most weeks based members would have more confidenece in a system that doesn't have a points component.

I am considering points, please see my previous post...I am sure just like everything else it has a work around...I'm sure I'll find it!

 

[Carolinian]

Another group that will be offended by a points system is those whose weeks are screwed by the overaveraging that is endemic to a points system - like giving the same value to a week 33 mid-August beach week and a late October week 43 of the same size at the same resort.

No points system based on a printed set of values could print a table that could possibly be fair, as there is just too much data. That is the inherent flaw in any points system. Try to nitpick the numbers needed for an exchange but have a valuation system that is anything but exact. That is the worst of both worlds.

Hi Craig. I agree, however, a resort cannot be required to actively work with that independent exchange company (such as actively confirming the weeks) and as such, it would be treated as any other private exchange in such cases. OK unless things don't go right.

There certainly are many variables to establishing a niche of an exchange system. For every person you aim for, there are man others you will be shooting at. If it's first come first served, those with the better weeks won't be interested. If it's a reasonable points based or a transparent trade power system, many off season or lower owners will be offended. I'd think the best options would be to strike up a partnership with one of the current independent's. Another option would be a partnership with one or several of the larger timeshare sales companies for a somewhat captive inventory. Or work out a deal with on of the current systems that already have an exchange system in place such as FF, Bluegreen, DVC, WorldMark, etc. Or someone who might desire one like ?Marriott.

The problem with dealing with TUG members and the like are that they generally know how to maximize the current systems. Usually a smaller system is harder to put yourself ahead than a larger one for those willing to learn the ropes. I would be against a TUG sponsored system because it would likely eliminate much of the objectivity that this site tries to offer.

Interesting subject, I wish you the best. Healthy competition will be good for all of us.

 

[Carolinian]

But failing to cooperate with an independent may well be an act in restraint of trade, actionable under state consumer protection laws. Resorts are better off if their members have as many exchange options as possible.

Hi Craig. I agree, however, a resort cannot be required to actively work with that independent exchange company (such as actively confirming the weeks) and as such, it would be treated as any other private exchange in such cases. OK unless things don't go right.

There certainly are many variables to establishing a niche of an exchange system. For every person you aim for, there are man others you will be shooting at. If it's first come first served, those with the better weeks won't be interested. If it's a reasonable points based or a transparent trade power system, many off season or lower owners will be offended. I'd think the best options would be to strike up a partnership with one of the current independent's. Another option would be a partnership with one or several of the larger timeshare sales companies for a somewhat captive inventory. Or work out a deal with on of the current systems that already have an exchange system in place such as FF, Bluegreen, DVC, WorldMark, etc. Or someone who might desire one like ?Marriott.

The problem with dealing with TUG members and the like are that they generally know how to maximize the current systems. Usually a smaller system is harder to put yourself ahead than a larger one for those willing to learn the ropes. I would be against a TUG sponsored system because it would likely eliminate much of the objectivity that this site tries to offer.

Interesting subject, I wish you the best. Healthy competition will be good for all of us.

 

[PerryM]

Barter V Currency

Carolinian,

I was waiting for the RCI V RCI Points to enter this fray.

Just because RCI Points did just about everything wrong does not doom a properly run points program - especially one that is grounded in reality.

Every Week based program is really a Points based program internally – each reservation is distilled into a number that represents trading power – the computers can only work with number not hunches. Unfortunately that number must be kept secret since it was cooked up out of thin air by the computer and has very little to do with reality.

The rules employed by II and RCI are there only for the benefit of exchange company – we all have had lopsided exchanges where we gave up a dog and got a thoroughbred. That practice is wrong and it happens so often to make exchange rules a joke.

The Points in my dream program are US dollar based and thus timeshares/condos in other countries are converted into US dollars. There are NO secrets in this system. US dollars are a substitute for the Points and can be added in to make an exchange the member wants.

A rule I use for investments is if there are any secrets, I don’t get involved – RCI and II are on par with the CIA when it comes to secrets and thus should be avoided.

The problem with RCI Points, WM, FF, Club IntraWest, and Disney is that those points are not based on anything that accurately reflects supply and demand; and that’s what exchanging is all about – the supply and demand for a unit.

I challenge anyone to come up with a program that is fairer and 100% open to the members and where the members have so much freedom and flexibility.

Getting the person who deposits a unit involved is key – that does not exist now and folks dump Motel 6 quality stuff that has 0 demand but tons of supply. That person will have enough control to reduce the points gotten to the point where the units are attractive to someone. Supply and demand become equal.

We are basically back to the old barter versus currency approach to exchanging. This time around, however, the currency is US dollars.

Barter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter

Currency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

 

[geekette]

Another group that will be offended by a points system is those whose weeks are screwed by the overaveraging that is endemic to a points system - like giving the same value to a week 33 mid-August beach week and a late October week 43 of the same size at the same resort.

No points system based on a printed set of values could print a table that could possibly be fair, as there is just too much data. That is the inherent flaw in any points system. Try to nitpick the numbers needed for an exchange but have a valuation system that is anything but exact. That is the worst of both worlds.

I know that you prefer supply and demand tables to be dynamic, and I understand Why, but I think Bluegreen does a good job with static tables. You know what you can afford and you know what you have. Sure, sometimes something will be out of whack, but it's an acceptable level of deviation, IMO, and apparently in theirs.

Administering constant change increases costs astronomically - someone has to be constantly evaluating and changing those tables, so there is nothing for the poor owner to hang their hat on: "Well, if I act now, I might be able to go to Resort X but if I wait a week to make sure Tom and Sue can go with us, I may not have the points for it". That's changing the game on both ends and seems like it would be extremely frustrating to everyone (again, just my opinion, I do not own RCI Points).

Mark, I look forward to test driving your system - put me down for banging on beta.

 

[Dean]

Another group that will be offended by a points system is those whose weeks are screwed by the overaveraging that is endemic to a points system - like giving the same value to a week 33 mid-August beach week and a late October week 43 of the same size at the same resort.

No points system based on a printed set of values could print a table that could possibly be fair, as there is just too much data. That is the inherent flaw in any points system. Try to nitpick the numbers needed for an exchange but have a valuation system that is anything but exact. That is the worst of both worlds.

Most of the things you complain so much about with points happens to a larger degree with with weeks. You make false assumptions about the fairness and flexibility of the current weeks systems, it simply isn't so. The transparency and flexibility of the weeks system are the best features and worth far more than the averaging you complain about.

But failing to cooperate with an independent may well be an act in restraint of trade, actionable under state consumer protection laws. Resorts are better off if their members have as many exchange options as possible.

Unlikely there is any legal concourse as there are no laws broken or even bent that I can see. The members can do what they want with their weeks and it's between them and whomever. If the resort refused to honor the property structured reservation, that would be a different matter. And while members may or may not be better off with additional choices, I doubt resort will be at all.

 

[Carolinian]

The resort is better off, because if a member gets ticked with an exchange company, they can just switch to a different one, rather than bailing out and deeding back their week.

As far as laws broken, the laws of every state plus federal law prohibit restraint of trade.

I have posted quite a few examples of the ''fairness'' of RCI's numbers racket called RCI Points that are simply not assumptions. They are hard numbers.

As to flexiblity, the most important flexibility in an exchange system is flexibility of the exchange mechanism. A set of rigged and frozen numbers that rarely if ever, change, like in Points, is simply NOT flexible. Trading values, published or not, that constantly adjust for ever changing factors of supply and demand, like Weeks trading power, are much more flexible. A system that is not flexible enough to adjust for the fact that Thanksgiving some years is week 46 instead of 47 (like RCI Points does not) is much more rigid than a system flexible enough to give the Thanksgiving bump to the proper week, like RCI Weeks does.

Weeks and Points each have areas that they are more flexible than the other.
But Weeks has the greater flexibility in its timeshare exchange mechanism, and in an exchange system that is where the rubber meets the road. Overpriced split weeks and overpriced rental cars, cruises, and similar fluff just don't matter as much.

Most of the things you complain so much about with points happens to a larger degree with with weeks. You make false assumptions about the fairness and flexibility of the current weeks systems, it simply isn't so. The transparency and flexibility of the weeks system are the best features and worth far more than the averaging you complain about.

Unlikely there is any legal concourse as there are no laws broken or even bent that I can see. The members can do what they want with their weeks and it's between them and whomever. If the resort refused to honor the property structured reservation, that would be a different matter. And while members may or may not be better off with additional choices, I doubt resort will be at all.

 

[Dean]

The resort is better off, because if a member gets ticked with an exchange company, they can just switch to a different one, rather than bailing out and deeding back their week.

That is extremely far fetched and not reality IMO.

As far as laws broken, the laws of every state plus federal law prohibit restraint of trade..

Since this would not apply in this case, I fail to see your point as there is no restraint of trade.

I have posted quite a few examples of the ''fairness'' of RCI's numbers racket called RCI Points that are simply not assumptions. They are hard numbers.

The points are true, your interpretation is suspect. And your idea that the weeks system is run fairly and changes on the fly in the way you suggest is more than suspect.

As to flexiblity, the most important flexibility in an exchange system is flexibility of the exchange mechanism. A set of rigged and frozen numbers that rarely if ever, change, like in Points, is simply NOT flexible. Trading values, published or not, that constantly adjust for ever changing factors of supply and demand, like Weeks trading power, are much more flexible. A system that is not flexible enough to adjust for the fact that Thanksgiving some years is week 46 instead of 47 (like RCI Points does not) is much more rigid than a system flexible enough to give the Thanksgiving bump to the proper week, like RCI Weeks does.

Weeks and Points each have areas that they are more flexible than the other.
But Weeks has the greater flexibility in its timeshare exchange mechanism, and in an exchange system that is where the rubber meets the road. Overpriced split weeks and overpriced rental cars, cruises, and similar fluff just don't matter as much.

I couldn't disagree with you more and couldn't feel you were further from the truth than I do now.

 

[Carolinian]

I would suggest that you also test the waters at www.timeshareforums.com , and for the European market at www.timesharetalk.co.uk

All of this probably saves a bundle on focus groups!

PerryM,

You have very interesting Ideas...I find that some of them are not applicable however, many, maybe even most of them are viable.

You have sparked my interest in your Idea. Although I have a set gameplan already, I would be willing to implement your idea also as an additional option for members. After determining which program is more successful the other would be gradually faded out.

I have seen many posts stating the similarities betwwen my proposed idea and the "traditional" exchange companies...I think the main thing that sets me apart from all other companies is that I came here first, to the end user, to the direct source...I have to pat myself on the back for doing that it has proven invaluable...I must also say that the TUG community has been very open about thier ideas, this tells me that there is a very unselfish desire for a new and better alternative.

Thanks to you all,

Mike V.

 

[PerryM]

Déjà Vu all over again

Carolinian,

I just don’t see how this thread has anything to do with RCI? Why are we rehashing the same old arguments over again?

I don’t see where Mike, the author of this thread, brought up RCI and why we are rehashing the same old arguments.

I would encourage folks to add constructive elements to this thread – that’s been my focus.

 

[Carolinian]

If you are in the trenchs and see the increasing bailout problems resorts are seeing from the offseason exchangers, you would understand the problem.

As to restraint of trade, if a resort refuses to confirm to an independent company whether a member has paid their m/f's and is eligible to deposit, but does to one of the big boys, as you suggest, then they are engaging in a monopolistic practice that is in restraint of trade.

I must admit that I was amused at some of the interpretations or spin that some of the Points advocates tried to put on the examples I have given. One I have used a number of times is how one can take a blue week 12 at inland New Bern, NC with RCI points and trade it to a similar sized unit for a summer week on the Outer Banks. That would never happen in Weeks, except rarely in the 45 day window if there was a cancellation, but it is right there in the Points numbers racket to use every day. Interestingly there was a thread recently on TimeshareForums from a member questioning why in the world Fairfield would put a resort in New Bern, and after vacationing there, questioning it even more. You might want to look up that thread.

That is extremely far fetched and not reality IMO.

Since this would not apply in this case, I fail to see your point as there is no restraint of trade.

The points are true, your interpretation is suspect. And your idea that the weeks system is run fairly and changes on the fly in the way you suggest is more than suspect.

I couldn't disagree with you more and couldn't feel you were further from the truth than I do now.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: Déjà Vu all over again

Various people in this thread have made comparisions with various exchange companies. It goes with the territory to make such comparisions.

Carolinian,

I just don’t see how this thread has anything to do with RCI? Why are we rehashing the same old arguments over again?

I don’t see where Mike, the author of this thread, brought up RCI and why we are rehashing the same old arguments.

I would encourage folks to add constructive elements to this thread – that’s been my focus.

 

[Carolinian]

International penetration?..

An exchange company that would be limited to mainly domestic exchanges would not be very appealing. What do you have in mind to reach international resorts?

Would you try to link up with overseas exchange companies like Interchange in Australia / New Zealand and UKRE in the British Isles, or mini-systems like Hapimag in Europe? Would you try to build your own presence overseas?

I wonder if Timelinx would unload its exchange component. While founded as an exchange company, and one of the first to use the internet for that purpose, its new owners have taken the company in another direction and now the only reference to exchanging on their website is a statement that they still do exchanges for ''members of the old company''. In particular, the owners at the resort Timelinx developed at a chateau in Normandy could probably use other exchange opportunities.

It would seem to me that the most important overseas areas to open up for an exchange company are the Caribbean and Europe.

 

[PerryM]

Who wants to spend 20+ posts talking about RCI again?

How many here vote to drudge up the RCI ills for this discussion? And how will that advance the theme of Mike’s thread?

 

[Carolinian]

Related services

What, if any, related services would you offer?

The original Swedish owners of Timelinx had an interesting idea of allowing members to use their website for resale, and had a member resale board on their site.

Some other companies have added things that get raspberries from most experienced timesharers, like the usually way overpriced ''cruise exchanges''.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: Who wants to spend 20+ posts talking about RCI again?

Could you explain, then why you can reference RCI in your posts on this thread, but you take issue if I do so?

How many here vote to drudge up the RCI ills for this discussion? And how will that advance the theme of Mike’s thread?

 

[Carolinian]

Re: Cut the fat

That was the premise when some business school grad students in Sweden started Timelinx some years ago, and they were the first exchange company to really get the internet bug. Its too bad they sold the company to owners who have now taken it in a very different direction.

One of the founders of Timelinx used to read TUG on occaision, as I have gotten a few emails from him. If he is still here, maybe he will give you some input.

Whatever a new company would do there should be one goal in mind: No Humans! All computers. It drives me nuts when II and RCI call up to “chew the fat”, and fat is what needs to be cut out.

100% internet driven.

 

[timeos2]

I believe the OP has heard the arguments pro & con for points vs weeks only. I'll find it interesting to see which way he goes or if it is a hybrid of both but in any case enough has already been said about each.

 

[PerryM]

A blank post

blank, sorry.

 

[Change the X-change]

Mark, I look forward to test driving your system - put me down for banging on beta.

It's Mike...no biggie though.

I got you down for Beta!

 

[Change the X-change]

Re: International penetration?..

An exchange company that would be limited to mainly domestic exchanges would not be very appealing. What do you have in mind to reach international resorts?

Whoa! Gotta learn to crawl…Exchanges would be the predominant factor initially so, the space I get would be what is available…I know…I know, no big whoops there however, the idea is to bring rental properties into the mix so I do not have to rely solely on exchanges…this would be my main focus, rather than begging the owners of overseas weeks to deposit with me, and giving them bonus week after bonus week and year memberships and upgrades etc. etc. I would have these rental vacation properties available for the members.

The way I would swing this with little to no monetary impact to the TS owner is what I am not ready to discuss, not because it is a secret, just because it is not yet up to par…it is still flawed. Any innovative Ideas are welcome.

 

[boyblue]

Carolinian, If you had to create a points system what would you include/exclude?

 

[PerryM]

Dream on

Link: http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/ali062606.html

Many if not most of those fractionals could easily be incorporated into my dream exchange.

Dream on.

 

[BocaBum99]

Carolinian, If you had to create a points system what would you include/exclude?

boyblue,

Even I can answer that one. It would be the points part. LOL.

 

[boyblue]

:hysterical:
Thanks BB that the best laugh I've had since the last time you got me! :rofl: